Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

Welcome to Stargazers Lounge

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customise your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Mr Spock

Moderators
  • Content count

    11,089
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,182 Excellent

About Mr Spock

  • Rank
    Science Officer
  • Birthday 16/03/58

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Deck 5
  1. Murky here for days. Cloud is a bit higher today so hopefully it might clear up.
  2. If I had to choose from those, it would be the CGEM + 1100. The CPC is a fine, convenient scope, but without field derotation not much use for imaging. A wedge complicates things and very unsatisfactory in use - you hear nothing but complaints and issues with them. Celestron are way ahead of Meade in all departments and I wouldn't touch a Meade with a barge pole At those focal lengths you will find any kind of deep sky imaging a challenge. Even some experts avoid such long focal lengths and it isn't something to be tackled by an ap beginner.
  3. Sounds like a great night. Our weather certainly can be challenging at times though!
  4. Robots? Are you sure?
  5. I used to have a 250, which I had on an EQ6. The weight is OK, but for me it was the bulk - just too big to pick up! Especially with my slipped disk. Finally settled on a C9.25 as it's compact, has a carry handle on the bottom, and is still quite light (one handed carry).
  6. You can only look through one at a time
  7. Nicely done. It's always exciting to have dark skies and even better when you can capture them.
  8. The 127 will lose out to an 8" Dob in every department. The Dob will see much fainter DSOs with 2½ times fainter objects and, see a lot more planetary detail with it's higher resolving power. The Mak will have tighter looking stars, but, it's resolving power is 0.91" as opposed to the 8" Dobs 0.58". So, you may well see more doubles with the Dob!
  9. It's a great looking image you have there. Nice one
  10. What size Mak?
  11. Hi, welcome to SGL
  12. Super detail
  13. Hi, welcome to SGL
  14. Hi, welcome to SGL
  15. lol, now you've done it